Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @01:56PM
from the barry-bonds-given-the-cold-shoulder-again dept.

gnujoshua writes "The Internet Hall of Fame inducted 32 new members, today. This years class had a number of 'policy innovators' and activists including Aaron Swartz (posthumous), John Perry Barlow, Jimmy Wales, and Richard M. Stallman. Stallman had this to say upon his induction: 'Now that we have made the Internet work, the next task is to stop it from being a platform for massive surveillance, and make it work in a way that respects human rights, including privacy.'"

Let me ask you this: how do you know that God doesn't exist? It's a stupid question because it's very difficult to proof the lack of an existence of something. Rather, the appropriate way to phrase the question is simply: how do you know that God exists? You have to prove your case, not get others to disprove it.

Likewise: how do you know that Microsoft Word is spying on you? The burden of proof is on you to show this is happening. You make the point tha

Seriously it's like the same argument with Microsoft using Kinect in the new XBox to spy on you - you think people wouldn't be able to detect a video/audio stream sent from their console? You think you can make this kind of data transfer magically invisible on the network?

You may not control the software, you may not even control the hardware, but most people control the equipment those things have to pass through to get to their destinations. Even if th

>Stallman had this to say upon his induction: 'Now that we have made the Internet work, the next task is to stop it from being a platform for massive surveillance, and make it work in a way that respects human rights, including privacy.'"

In retrospect, it would have been neat to have written that kind of thing into the GPL (the spooks would have run Windows servers instead, and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13).

and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13)

I like the naieve implication that the NSA is somehow incompetent. Recall that the original AES spec was amended with a recommendation from the NSA which was determined, around 10 years later, to have substantially strengthened it against just-now-being-discovered cryptographic attacks. Recall that the NSA is largely responsible for SELinux.

Im sure there are other examples of their competence which escape it, but needless to say they arent exactly bumbling; theres every indication that some of the best security folks in the industry work @ the NSA.

Yet their dirty secrets were spread far and wide by Edward Snowden, and that's the reality.

They no doubt do have some absolute geniuses working for them but it only takes one bumbling manager to fuck it all up by saying something they shouldn't, or by mandating that their secrets should be accessible way beyond sensible levels of security. The fact a low level contractor at a 3rd party company had so much access to NSA secrets is evidence of that.

In retrospect, it would have been neat to have written that kind of thing into the GPL (the spooks would have run Windows servers instead, and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13).

Even the FSF says the GNU AGPL [gnu.org] addresses some, but not all [gnu.org], of their issues with software run over a network—best to just roll your own versions of the cloud stuff on your compy if you really give a fuck about not being mined and mailed out.

I'm not sure what you think has changed. Unless you didn't already realize the NSA was doing this unlike the other 95% of the population did.

We knew it already and still ignored him, because in the end, no one cares. They *say* they care, but they don't.

In fact, at this point, I'd put even money on the assertion that the only reason anyone is even talking about this is because the media is telling us to care about it. You know, it's sort of like Jim Carrey figuring out he didn't like violence AFTER Newtown, but somehow having amnesia about Columbine, Virginia Tech, and well... just about every other act of violence before that.

Were you wrong to be complacent? Maybe. Did *this* make you wrong? I don't see why it would. As far as can be told, other than finding out some details, you're still living in the same world you were complacent about a couple of months ago.

I'm already working to figure out how many weeks it will be after Snowden is either caught, or safely in Ecuador, before everyone stops caring again.

In fact, at this point, I'd put even money on the assertion that the only reason anyone is even talking about this is because the media is telling us to care about it.

Really? The coverage I have seen is focused almost exclusively on "the hunt for Eric Snowden" and takes very little time to discuss the substantive issues raised by his revelations--chiefly that most of our privacy has been a facade for the better part of a decade. I was never that cynical before this, so congratulations for being the first ones to believe something was amiss.

They've spent a fair amount of time looking at those implications already, I'd say. That they have moved on to the "action movie" drama that is unfolding only makes perfect sense for the news media.

I still am shocked to find people who believe that there was some sort of privacy "facade" out there. Don't you guys know what the capabilities of the NSA are? Have we not already heard of things like tapping Soviet undersea cables, ECHELON, and other fun toys?

Nothing has changed with this admission if you've been paying attention for the last twenty years or longer. They've always had the ability to spy on us. The fact that no one has actually shown that this has been abused in any way leads me to wonder how anyone, on sober reflection, could believe anything has changed at all.

Suspicion-free spying on every American doesn't count as "Abuse" in your book? What would they have to do to actually abuse their power based on your definition?

Prior to this the facade of "innocent until proven guilty" and "the 4th Amendment" still applying existed. Just because they had the capability to spy on us didn't automatically mean they were--only a paranoid nutter believes everybody is out to get them without any actual evidence that they are. Ironically, it seems that, in fact, by shutting down

To be fair the BBC at least has had a number of articles such as "What could they know about me?" and that sort of thing so it's not all media outlets that have been ignoring the questions the revelation raises.

I hate to do this, but I have to question the inclusion of Aaron Swartz.

Yes, what happened to the young man is a tragedy. But a 'Hall of Fame' should be for people with actual accomplishments. All Swartz did was get himself into trouble, and instead of enduring his legal difficulties he decided to commit suicide. That's a symbol of cowardice, not heroism.

Should naive activists who are cowardly in the face of oppression be considered for any Hall of Fame?

1. The guy had depression. You don't fuck with depression. The government did, until he could finally take no more. If you knew fucking *anything* about depression, then you might have even the slightest clue of how he must have felt. Hint: It's not a happy feeling.2. Yes, he got into trouble with a ridiculous federal law, and was made an example of by people in power who were had more greed than anything, wanting to utterly destroy his life just for a bit of fame and fortune on their end. In the end, their plan backfired--and deservedly so.3. Enduring his legal difficulties? I'm pretty sure just before his suicide *ALL* hope for a reduced prison sentence was thrown out the window in Ortiz's infinite wisdom, meaning "enduring his legal difficulties" would be "stuck behind bars for 35 years or so." He hung in there for a couple years until the U.S. removed all hope.4. The whole treatment the government gave him opened the eyes of a lot of people on the corrupt joke of the U.S. "justice" system, and in the end he has done the world a service on that alone. Changes are still likely to come, thanks to him.

What? My shitty schools always applauded everything about this country. I refuse to buy into all of it, because frankly, a lot of it is pure horseshit. Just blind patriotism. I can see where the U.S. does things great, but I am most definitely not blind to all the things they fail miserably at. I am not blind to the corruption in government that keeps getting unraveled.

I don't know when or where you grew up, but in no way do schools push patriotism today. They stopped doing that in the 1980s. Most of the teachers I had were more likely to be in a peace march than extolling the virtues of America and patriotism.

Funny, I was born in '85 and *all* of my schools pushed patriotism every chance they could get throughout the 90s and early 2000s. I just learned not to believe all the bullshit they spewed, and to use my head to form my own conclusions from the facts. Same with all the anti-drug propaganda they pushed, those retarded DARE and MADD presentations... a few of which I just said "fuck this shit" and took off out of the school. Yeah, that wasn't allowed, but they can suck it.

Yeah, the inclusion of Swartz shows you right there this is a political game. They want to make a statement. I guess all of these judged honors are political to some extent, but this is clearly on the "highly political" end.

I think it's unfortunate because it might give other young people the incentive to follow Swartz's example. It was a terrible precedent and it's irresponsible for adults to reward that behavior. Aaron Swartz died for what... so people won't have to pay for what seems to be inflated s

Best way to get notice: die of something before you get old enough to grow up and stop making pointless demonstrations. That way you never have to deal with the possibility that people will catch on to the fact that your petulant little crusade is all you've got.

How can they expect to be taken seriously as an institution when they have repeatedly denied membership to internet pioneers such as Goatse Man and Ceiling Cat? And their refusal to adopt "You're the man now, dog" as their slogan is outrageous.

Adnonify is a simple plug & play network device that will enable you to anonimize your surfing behaviour, avoid you being tracked by media/advertising companies and remove all intrusive advertising
Support us on indiegogo http://igg.me/at/adnonify [igg.me]

I've got mod points today, and I figured that a good use of them would be beating the Stallmanite trolls into submission, who I knew would be infesting this thread. Unfortunately, there are far too many of them to be stopped by a measly five points.

The vitriol directed towards Aaron Swartz, additionally, is nothing short of disgusting. Until someone is able to offer me concrete proof to the contrary, I am going to continue to believe that Swartz was the victim of assassination by the American government.

Did I understand this correctly? RMS, Wales and Barlow has got in recently, so they are less famous then some guys have already been inducted, but I don't know any of them. Self appointed hall of fame?

The problem is that they want everything to be backed up by a verifiable source, and fails to enforce it. You either allow everyone to edit, or you follow established scientific procedures. Wikipedia does something in between, leaving both sides unhappy with it.

It's enforced very often, just not always. Sooner or later someone (often like me) comes along and sweeps it up.
I'm not a part of any "wiki-clique", I don't contribute any actual content, but if I'm browsing and I notice something untidy I'll tidy it up or put a relevant sign.

Wikipedia does something in between, leaving both sides unhappy with it.

You can't please everyone all the time, but Wikipedia does a damn good job at pleasing a lot of people.